The seeds for this issue were sown in 2015. One day, the now Buffs’ safety broke the school’s no-phone policy while calling his mother, Pilar. But when Josh Darjean, a security officer, reminded him of the rule and decided to course correct with “unnecessary force” as shared by Deion Sanders in 2016, the issue escalated to violence. It ended with $115,000 in medical bills and unstable employment for Darjean.

He decided to sue Deion Sanders’s son in 2016, but the father wasn’t convinced. “He [Darjean] knew he was gonna be dismissed from his job for the way he handled this situation and others prior, consequently, he produced an injury completely UNRELATED to this incident,” Sanders stated that year. But fast forward to 2024, the case only got further jumbled up.

For instance, Shilo didn’t show up for a trial that was set in early 2022. It is said that the notice for the trial was sent to an address in South Carolina. But Shilo hasn’t lived there on a permanent basis since 2020 and this confusion resulted in a default judgment by the court; He had to pay $11.89 million.

Post this, the athlete filed a petition of relief under Chapter 7 of Colorado’s Bankruptcy Code in an attempt to get his debt either partially or fully discharged. Well, a federal judge has now issued a ruling in favor of the Colorado player. As reported by USA Today, Judge Michael E. Romero ruled that the case would need a trial to confirm whether Shilo Sanders was “willful and malicious” in his assault.

“This Court has already determined the issues of willful and malicious behavior will be re-litigated in this proceeding… That determination will necessarily involve an examination of any justification, including self-defense, offered by Sanders for his allegedly willful and malicious behavior.”

Had it been ruled the other way, it would have been a massive jolt for Shilo in his effort to erase his $11 million debt to Darjean. He would have had to pay millions to Darjean, pending any appeal. Instead, his case will now be fought on numerous fronts.

Shilo Sanders: What was the bankruptcy ruling all about?

As shared by Shilo’s attorneys, the reason the athlete filed for bankruptcy was because he wanted a “fresh start, free from the oppressive burdens of his debt.” However, the law has some exceptions where it prevents debts from being discharged. This is something that could either positively or negatively affect Shilo’s case.

‘Willful and malicious injury by the debtor’ is one such exception. In fact, in response to the athlete’s bankruptcy filing, Darjean’s attorneys raised complaints and one of those mentioned that Shilo Sanders should not be discharged from the debt, as it was a result of willful and malicious intent. That’s something that Judge Michael E. Romero wants to see under trial.

While the judge didn’t agree with Darjean’s attorneys’ points regarding willful and malicious intent, he did agree that the issues of causation and damages were litigated in state court, not Shilo Sanders’s state of mind during the incident in 2015.

Top Stories

Chiefs Announce Relocation From Missouri to Kansas to Build New Stadium

Is Philip Rivers Catholic or Mormon? Religion, Ethnicity & More About Colts QB

Kansas City Mayor Sends Strong Message to Clark Hunt After Chiefs Confirm Arrowhead Exit

LIV Golf Issues Statement as Pro Announces Shock Retirement After Getting Relegated

DK Metcalf Awaits Huge Punishment From NFL After Controversial Incident vs Detroit Lions

Another Almost Fatal Disaster Surfaces From Statesville Airport Amidst Ongoing Greg Biffle’s Crash Investigation

“The State Court Order and Judgment (in Texas) are devoid of any discussion of Sanders’ intent,” the judge wrote. “Given this lack of findings, the Court is reluctant to conclude the issue of self-defense was fully and fairly litigated in state court.”

“Sanders pled self-defense in his state court answer, but he obviously was not at trial and did not present any evidence regarding his state of mind,” the judge wrote. “One could argue the state court necessarily rejected all Sanders’ pled defenses when it determined he committed assault. However, the State Court Order and Judgment make no mention of self-defense, or any justification offered by Sanders for his actions. There is no indication the state court considered Sanders’ state of mind or whether his alleged apprehension of danger was reasonable.”

So, what’s the next in this case?

The judge also stated that “issues of willful act, malicious injury, or self-defense and those matters will be determined in this proceeding.” One can infer that a trial will be conducted sometime in the future.